After two decades of research in the United States, shale gas succeeded in making its entry into the energy markets. This unconventional gas succeeded in playing a key role in the American market last year. The pumping of large quantities of shale gas into the markets led to the reduction of gas prices by nearly a half. More importantly, it led to significant changes in the course of the global gas trade, adversely affecting the economics of liquefied natural gas projects and the feasibility of executing new liquefied gas projects, which cost billions of dollars each. However, a recent study, issued by the renowned London-based international studies center Chatham House, warned of the dangers of increased interest given by the petroleum industry to shale gas, instead of conventional gas. The study mentions that despite the abundance of shale gas, especially in the United States, there are many caveats that must be taken into account in the increased reliance on shale gas, at the expense of conventional gas. This is because the extraction of shale gas is done by cracking underground rocks by using water under high pressure mixed with chemicals. Subsequently, there are difficulties and dangers of a geological, environmental, and economic nature facing the shale gas extraction process. This renders the cost of shale gas production extremely high, not to mention the unacceptable environmental effects, such as the pollution of water aquifers that are being relied on for drinking and irrigation. The main reason behind the concerns regarding shale gas lies in the extensive investments being undertaken in the medium term in this field, at the expense of conventional gas. The author of the study and the primary researcher at Chatham House, Paul Stevens, mentions that if the shale gas industry continues to flourish and spreads to other countries outside of the United States, the repercussions of this trend will remain limited for the time being. However, he adds that “if [the shale gas industry] fails to deliver on current expectations, then in ten years or so, gas supplies will face serious constraints.” According to Stevens, this will lead to high increases in prices in light of the shortage in gas supplies for some considerable time. The reason for this is the decline in investments in conventional gas projects during that period, especially in the liquefied natural gas industry. It should be mentioned that the extensive use of shale gas in the United States has coincided with the oil spill in the Macondo field in the Gulf of Mexico. Since its extraction requires cracking large underground rocks using water (90%) and chemicals (10%), this has raised fears, both in the Congress and local councils in the U.S. states, of the contamination of water aquifers. As a result, rules and regulations were drafted to avoid the contamination of fresh water. What also made matters worse for shale gas was the explosion, in early June, in one of the wells drilled for shale gas extraction in the state of Pennsylvania, causing the officials to fear “another BP” disaster. According to Paul Stevens' study, the relatively low prices, the small level of emissions resulting from the use of shale gas, and the availability of this gas in abundance in the United States (almost double the reserves of natural gas there), will lead to less investments, not only in conventional gas projects, but also in the construction of nuclear power plants and carbon dioxide storage plants. In this regard, Stevens wonders about who will commit large sums of money to expensive energy projects, if it is possible to invest in extracting shale gas that has low levels CO2 emissions. The main reason behind the relatively low price of shale gas in the United States is the incentives given to fuels with relatively lower emissions, and the financial incentives given to landowners for the extraction of shale gas in their lands, which helped reduce the price of shale gas in the United States. But for how long will these incentives still be given in the United States? More importantly, will the other countries provide the same incentives as the United States to maintain low prices for shale gas? Last but not least, what will be the environmental impact of shale gas extraction, especially in terms of fresh water resources? It is clear that we are now dealing with a new type of hydrocarbon fuels, originating from rocks and not fields. However, it is also clear that there are many questions regarding this energy source, not to mention its environmental dangers. From here stem Stevens' warnings regarding the increased interest in this fuel, at the expense of other types of fuels, be they gaseous or liquids. In other words, where must petroleum investments be directed to? And what are the risks of giving preference to investments in shale gas extraction over the investments in other energy sources? Subsequently, what will the fate of shale gas be in light of these many questions? Can the preference given to this gas in the United States guarantee its success in the future? In case not, what impact will this scenario have on gas supplies and prices in the future? *. Mr. Khadduri is an energy expert
